On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:45:53PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:54 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 20:35:50 +0800, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:22:21PM +0800, Zhao, Gang wrote: > > > >> > If we add your patch and the reviewer does a search for fb[0] then it is > > > >> > confusing what the right thing to do is. > > > >> > > > >> My fault. I should remove that two lines of code in > > > >> et131x_rx_dma_memory_free(), although they don't break the code. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Think about what you are saying here for a minute. > > > > > > Oh, a cold makes me stupid. that two lines of code is needed > > > definitively. > > > > > > So is additional modification needed to let this patch be accepted ? > > > > As I can't take this as-is, yes. > > Sorry I'm completely lost here, can someone explain the problem they are > seeing after the changes ? > There is no problem. Zhao, Gang is just randomly sprinklying kfree()s around to "simplify the code"... regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
